The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Imperial Dave]

always a possibility. The other issue is we dont know if you visited them personally or just heard about them. Same with his treatment of the various Kings he has a go at.

[Jim Webster]

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

Gildas would have struggled with the very concept of a journalist

And how does he know history?
Yes as a founder of monasteries he would have had access to some monastic annals, but not every monastery kept them and we know by comparing them that some missed out stuff that wasn't relevant to their area, had double entries and got their timing wrong with stuff occurring six years after it did.

There is an argument for Gildas being based in the south west, in which case the putative annals of his monastery may never have mentioned Germanus because his arrival never had an impact on them and something more locally happened in that year.

But what other histories were there? That's the whole problem with the period. Parthia isn't a problem. They appear very briefly in the New Testament. They'll appear in any of the vague general histories.
Apparently from his Latin, Gildas is a man with a good classical education, so he was educated. he'd have read a lot of the continental authors. He might even know Josephus, Caesar etc
But there's an awful shortage of histories which cover Britain (actually after Agricola) and it gets worse in the 4th and 5th century.
For example we're not sure if the Barbarian Conspiracy is a thing, and there's other times when Emperors at Britain to their titles and we haven't a clue why but it should mean a general fought a successful campaign in their name

[Justin Swanton]

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

Gildas would have struggled with the very concept of a journalist

And how does he know history?
Yes as a founder of monasteries he would have had access to some monastic annals, but not every monastery kept them and we know by comparing them that some missed out stuff that wasn't relevant to their area, had double entries and got their timing wrong with stuff occurring six years after it did.

There is an argument for Gildas being based in the south west, in which case the putative annals of his monastery may never have mentioned Germanus because his arrival never had an impact on them and something more locally happened in that year.

But what other histories were there? That's the whole problem with the period. Parthia isn't a problem. They appear very briefly in the New Testament. They'll appear in any of the vague general histories.
Apparently from his Latin, Gildas is a man with a good classical education, so he was educated. he'd have read a lot of the continental authors. He might even know Josephus, Caesar etc
But there's an awful shortage of histories which cover Britain (actually after Agricola) and it gets worse in the 4th and 5th century.
For example we're not sure if the Barbarian Conspiracy is a thing, and there's other times when Emperors at Britain to their titles and we haven't a clue why but it should mean a general fought a successful campaign in their name

IMHO the idea that Gildas would not have known of the existence of Germanus is way too much of a reach - Germanus died only a few decades before Gildas was born. He knew all about Maximus, he knows the relative geography of Parthia and India. And what Germanus did in Britain would have been universally known by word of mouth, records or no records. Gildas had to have know about him. So why did he leave him out? Because he is talking about the unworthiness of British kings and he mentions one shining exception - Ambrosius. Talking about Germanus or Arthur - neither of whom had any political authority - would have been off the point.

[Erpingham]

We might note that Maximus plays a much larger role in later Welsh tradition than Germanus, being seen as a dynastic foundation by a number of kingdoms.  He is also recorded as father in law of Vortigern in some stories.  So Gildas' greater knowledge of Maximus may simply be because his story was well established already. 

[Imperial Dave]

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history.
Think of it as a leader article in the Sunday Newspaper attacking the moral degeneration of the west over the collapse of Afghanistan
There's the historical introduction to set the scene, largely written from memory, because the detail is there purely to set the moral scene, it doesn't need fact checking. The important part of the leader article is the tirade that comes next.
It's the same with Gildas. The important part of his sermon is how far current leaders have fallen. Sadly, it's the bit we have damn all interest in

He was a monk and evangelist. He's writing a sermon, not a history. But he does know history. And he wasn't a contemporary journalist. I have a friend who did a course in journalism at university. Amongst the first things his lecturer said was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

Gildas would have struggled with the very concept of a journalist

And how does he know history?
Yes as a founder of monasteries he would have had access to some monastic annals, but not every monastery kept them and we know by comparing them that some missed out stuff that wasn't relevant to their area, had double entries and got their timing wrong with stuff occurring six years after it did.

There is an argument for Gildas being based in the south west, in which case the putative annals of his monastery may never have mentioned Germanus because his arrival never had an impact on them and something more locally happened in that year.

But what other histories were there? That's the whole problem with the period. Parthia isn't a problem. They appear very briefly in the New Testament. They'll appear in any of the vague general histories.
Apparently from his Latin, Gildas is a man with a good classical education, so he was educated. he'd have read a lot of the continental authors. He might even know Josephus, Caesar etc
But there's an awful shortage of histories which cover Britain (actually after Agricola) and it gets worse in the 4th and 5th century.
For example we're not sure if the Barbarian Conspiracy is a thing, and there's other times when Emperors at Britain to their titles and we haven't a clue why but it should mean a general fought a successful campaign in their name

IMHO the idea that Gildas would not have known of the existence of Germanus is way too much of a reach - Germanus died only a few decades before Gildas was born. He knew all about Maximus, he knows the relative geography of Parthia and India. And what Germanus did in Britain would have been universally known by word of mouth, records or no records. Gildas had to have know about him. So why did he leave him out? Because he is talking about the unworthiness of British kings and he mentions one shining exception - Ambrosius. Talking about Germanus or Arthur - neither of whom had any political authority - would have been off the point.

saying that Gildas had to have known about him is also a bit of a reach. He may have known about him, he may not. Maybe Germanus did something he disapproved of and so didnt include him. He may have appeared originally but was scrubbed out in later editions etc etc. Connecting an absence of mention of Arthur with an absence of mention of Germanus is a reach. He didnt mention the Loch Ness Monster so we can propose that Nessie existed on that premise 

In all seriousness, he doesnt mention any Pict, Irish or Saxon leaders from the time period he is writing about. It may be that he only has snippets of info from the time period because it is before his floruit and so uses these because its all he has. Then there comes the question about where he got the information from. Historians in Britain even in the Roman period are like hen's teeth, in the 5th Century worse still. In all likelihood he has to rely on verbal information possible from eyewitnesses and possibly from 2nd or 3rd hand sources. We just dont know. Even if he is trying his best to write an accurate and truthful account it is fraught with assumptions, red herrings, misinformation and bias.

[Justin Swanton]

saying that Gildas had to have known about him is also a bit of a reach. He may have known about him, he may not. Maybe Germanus did something he disapproved of and so didnt include him. He may have appeared originally but was scrubbed out in later editions etc etc. Connecting an absence of mention of Arthur with an absence of mention of Germanus is a reach. He didnt mention the Loch Ness Monster so we can propose that Nessie existed on that premise 

In all seriousness, he doesnt mention any Pict, Irish or Saxon leaders from the time period he is writing about. It may be that he only has snippets of info from the time period because it is before his floruit and so uses these because its all he has. Then there comes the question about where he got the information from. Historians in Britain even in the Roman period are like hen's teeth, in the 5th Century worse still. In all likelihood he has to rely on verbal information possible from eyewitnesses and possibly from 2nd or 3rd hand sources. We just dont know. Even if he is trying his best to write an accurate and truthful account it is fraught with assumptions, red herrings, misinformation and bias.

Germanus was a champion of Catholic orthodoxy, sent by the bishops of Gaul (and the Pope) to combat Pelagianism in Britain. That automatically makes him a hero for any 5th century British ecclesiastic. Plus he shamed Vortigern into exile and commanded the British army in their first ever victory over the Saxons. He visited Britain several times and he was much nearer in time to Gildas than Maximus (who did much less). I maintain that it was utterly impossible that Gildas had never heard of him. But that's just me. 

Gildas writes a sermon with an historical preface, so his preface covers material that he will develop in the body of his sermon, and the body of his sermon is about the perfidy of British kings. So, British and king. He has no interest mentioning anyone else.

And he probably had plenty of source material to work from, which source material has been lost since the society that preserved it vanished from history.

Which brings us to the happy place where Gildas and Nennius do not contradict but rather compliment each other and supply a coherent if incomplete picture of what was happening in 5th century Britain.

[Jim Webster]

IMHO the idea that Gildas would not have known of the existence of Germanus is way too much of a reach - Germanus died only a few decades before Gildas was born. He knew all about Maximus, he knows the relative geography of Parthia and India. And what Germanus did in Britain would have been universally known by word of mouth, records or no records. Gildas had to have know about him. So why did he leave him out? Because he is talking about the unworthiness of British kings and he mentions one shining exception - Ambrosius. Talking about Germanus or Arthur - neither of whom had any political authority - would have been off the point.

Perhaps Gildas doesn't mention Germanus because he did know about him, rather than the accumulation of legends which we've had handed down.
After all Gildas was born about 500AD, Germanus may have died as late as 448AD but the only generally accepted trip to Britain is about 429AD

I would urge you to read Ikka Syvanne  in his Military History of Late Rome 425-457
Here he covers Germanus who married a lady in the Imperial Court and was appointed Dux  by the Emperor

There's an interesting wiki about the life of Germanus which we get the information about him from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Germani

It's even suggested by some scholars that the famous victory was added as much because a hagiography needed one

The reason I'm labouring these points is to show have difficult it is to put together a Chronology of the 5th century.

[Justin Swanton]

IMHO the idea that Gildas would not have known of the existence of Germanus is way too much of a reach - Germanus died only a few decades before Gildas was born. He knew all about Maximus, he knows the relative geography of Parthia and India. And what Germanus did in Britain would have been universally known by word of mouth, records or no records. Gildas had to have know about him. So why did he leave him out? Because he is talking about the unworthiness of British kings and he mentions one shining exception - Ambrosius. Talking about Germanus or Arthur - neither of whom had any political authority - would have been off the point.

Perhaps Gildas doesn't mention Germanus because he did know about him, rather than the accumulation of legends which we've had handed down.
After all Gildas was born about 500AD, Germanus may have died as late as 448AD but the only generally accepted trip to Britain is about 429AD

I would urge you to read Ikka Syvanne  in his Military History of Late Rome 425-457
Here he covers Germanus who married a lady in the Imperial Court and was appointed Dux  by the Emperor

There's an interesting wiki about the life of Germanus which we get the information about him from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Germani

It's even suggested by some scholars that the famous victory was added as much because a hagiography needed one

The reason I'm labouring these points is to show have difficult it is to put together a Chronology of the 5th century.

What I'm trying to do is take the principal sources themselves - leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever - and see if they can be made to make sense and accord with each other, at least on the main facts. So far so good. 

[Erpingham]

Which brings us to the happy place where Gildas and Nennius ....... supply a coherent if incomplete picture of what was happening in 5th century Britain.

Although I'm not up to speed on the literature, I suspect this would be a bit of minority view .

[Justin Swanton]

Which brings us to the happy place where Gildas and Nennius ....... supply a coherent if incomplete picture of what was happening in 5th century Britain.

Although I'm not up to speed on the literature, I suspect this would be a bit of minority view .

I'm used to it. 

[Mick Hession]

The reason I'm labouring these points is to show have difficult it is to put together a Chronology of the 5th century.

Oh it's easy to put together a chronology - Justin has just done so. The hard bit is getting everyone else to agree with yours.

Cheers
Mick

[Jim Webster]

What I'm trying to do is take the principal sources themselves - leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever - and see if they can be made to make sense and accord with each other, at least on the main facts. So far so good. 

The problem is the principal sources are not good.

So take the sources for St Germanus.
He existed, he came to Britain, but the sources were remarkably vague about what he did when he arrived here, and they may have assumed that 5th century Britain was the same as 5th century Gaul, so assumed the same social and military structures.

Trying to put together a chronology for the century the first thing you have to do is to look at your fixed dates

Constantine arriving in Gaul from Britain is pretty reliable, to a couple of years.
Germanus in Britain, whatever he did is pretty reliable.

Then we have one of the Frankish Chronicles saying that (from memory) in 445AD the Saxons conquered  Britain. But this rather clashes with an awful lot of other stuff.
Just trying to put things in the right order without bothering about dates is awfully tricky

[Jim Webster]

The reason I'm labouring these points is to show have difficult it is to put together a Chronology of the 5th century.

Oh it's easy to put together a chronology - Justin has just done so. The hard bit is getting everyone else to agree with yours.

Cheers
Mick

Indeed getting people to agree that the events you put in your Chronology actually happened is tricky enough, never mind a date 

[RichT]

What I'm trying to do is take the principal sources themselves - leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever - and see if they can be made to make sense and accord with each other, at least on the main facts.

But then you aren't "leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever" because the act of "see[ing] if they can be made to make sense" involves inserting a whole load of "whatever has been suggested" by you. You keep making this false distinction between you (pure study of the evidence) and everyone else (willful irrelevant interpretation). It happens in every topic, every time.

But I've no dog in this particular fight, so carry on chaps.

[Justin Swanton]

What I'm trying to do is take the principal sources themselves - leaving out whatever has been suggested by whoever - and see if they can be made to make sense and accord with each other, at least on the main facts. So far so good. 

The problem is the principal sources are not good.

So take the sources for St Germanus.
He existed, he came to Britain, but the sources were remarkably vague about what he did when he arrived here, and they may have assumed that 5th century Britain was the same as 5th century Gaul, so assumed the same social and military structures.

Trying to put together a chronology for the century the first thing you have to do is to look at your fixed dates

Constantine arriving in Gaul from Britain is pretty reliable, to a couple of years.
Germanus in Britain, whatever he did is pretty reliable.

Then we have one of the Frankish Chronicles saying that (from memory) in 445AD the Saxons conquered  Britain. But this rather clashes with an awful lot of other stuff.
Just trying to put things in the right order without bothering about dates is awfully tricky

I make one assumption: that Germanus' first visit was purely ecclesiastical and that it is distinct from his intervention against Vortigern which after looking carefully at Constantius and Nennius can be interpreted as an entirely separate visit.....or (on reflection more likely) his first visit lasted years - a decade or more - which is quite reasonable since it takes time to neutralise a heresy. You don't just preach a couple of fiery sermons and then hop on the boat.

With that assumption everything falls into place. Vortigern brings the Saxons over only around 440. This matches the Frankish Chronicles that affirm the Saxons (temporarily) conquered Britain in 445. Ambrosius' battle in the mid 440's then allows for Arthur to have a military career that isn't impossibly long culminating in Baden in the 480's. It all hangs together and doesn't require that significant passages in the sources be chucked overboard.